ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

"Thats rather amusing coming from you. Most here have expresssed some degree of concern for the effects of HR and RSB has patiently provided explanation for some of the concerns expressed here."

Rsb is full of crap and if you believe 2 words of it, you areas well. He has addressed zip, only spewing complete unbased nonsense thats even more obtuse than what pgc themselvesspat at us. We provide proof. His proof on the other hand is manipulated number grouping in deceptive manner and lots of doubletalk, along with a healthy dose ofanswersthat dontmatter,in response to questions that arent asked.

"All you have provided here is your opinion of the situation in your WMU."

Actually that alone isnt my position and hasnt been here or anywhere else. Ive discussed the statewide situation and pgc data SEVERALtimes and spoken of the plan basically as a STATEWIDE flop and provided proof. This is no 2A problem. But 2A certainly isnt being spared. TO varying degrees this is a blanket mismanagement problem.

"Of course you typically have to yell it in your posts. Maybe you didn't know that all caps or all bold type is considered yelling on the internet but I suspect you knew that."

Nope. Not yelling. Just adding emphasis on "points". Take it how you like, Im not aiming to impress you or anyone else. Justtelling it like itis.

'You complain from the WMU that has one of the highest if not the highest deer densities in the state."

Yep. And not once wasmy "complaint" about not being able to find deer so whats your point? My complaint iswith the lies and the rediculous old herd goal of 13dpsm pgc seems to deciefully be strivingfor despite claims of stabilization. Also considering many other areas that have rediculously low wmus, stating this one is one of the higher ones isnt saying much. Especially when it is dropping like a rock for no reason for last several years despite claims of stabilization. Guess I should wait till we (best areas of the state)have 9 dpsm like some areas of 2G before I dare say a word! (LOL)[:'(]

"Sorry Cornelius, but you are the extremist here not RSB."

Hardly the case when my views mirror the huge majority who do not support the rediculous deerslaughter plan, that RSB has even pointed out is based on nothing by even admitting the "indicator" of herd health is at the very best inconclusive and at worst...SHOWS DECLINE!

Im no treehugger.Many on your side cannot truthfullysay otherwise.

See audubon society Pa to see the "extremists" who share rsbs views on the whitetail woodswreckers..[:'(]

could it be that our doe are young ,as old doe are gone?

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

"RSB has posted credible facts. No matter how much you bold your type. or go ha ha ha or make faces or go lol, its's just an opinion. No supporting facts from Cornelius. Typical of a response from a frustrated extremist. "

HA HA HA(LOL)

Could you point out one reply that actually made sense from RSB or yourself in regards to dispelling ANYTHING ive said? I thought not. Ha ha. Pgc is a fraud. ONly extreme viewed few individuals support the extent of reduction for no good reason and that is not opinion its FACT! (lol) ha ha!

You are telling the truth. I posted the data that shows 2B 2C and 5C still had the highest number of doe checked. You said you were going to provide data to prove I was wrong so where is it? Maybe you should sit down with a pencil and paper and figure out just how it is possible to reduce the statewide average by 5 % without having reducing in some WMU's by over 5%.

The 13 % variance is not a factor since the 5% decline was based on 3 year averages for both the years with the high breeding rates as well as the low breeding rates in 2007.

Once again you have failed to provide a rational answer for the decreased breeding rates even though the answer is obvious to anyone that knows anything about breeding rates.

I'll give you one more chance to correct your mistakes and tell the truth before I spill the beans. Good luck.

Unlike many who support the plan, I never questioned the breeding rate data, productivity or harvest data. I have yet to find a case where there is a rational reason for questioning that data or any indication they manipulated the data. However, they may present the data in a way that makes them look good or they may misrepresent what the data shows. Instead they reported that breeding rates and productivity decreased when they were predicted to increase. they reported that the 2.5 buck harvest in 2007 was less than in 2002 even though Alt claimed ARs would double the number of 2.5+ buck. They also admitted that only 2% of the buck harvested were 3.5 buck even though they tried to disguise it.

i provided the results from Miss. , the Harris study , the Harmel study and PGC data to support my position. You and RSB present your misguided opinions that are not supported by fact.
There simply is no way to discredit the fact that harvest data statewide showed that rack sizes of 2.5+ buck decreased in Miss. kroll questioned the implications of the decrease ,but he didn't refute the results.

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

"question, in your opinion why do you think we have very few fawns ,if any in clinton county/potter. "

According to pgc data, the embryo counts are some of the best in the state! Problem is, there are too few doe having them! When you have a very low deer density to begin with, it doesnt take nearly as much predation to make a dent. Also, taking more adult does would definately contribute to fewer fawns.

Course if you believe some doomsdayerson here, they'll have you believing its because the doe hasnt eaten in months and her legs wont hold out to allow a buck to mount and breed her due to weakness...

ORIGINAL: R.S.B.


First o f all I am pleased that finally admitted I was the one telling the truth. Oh, I’ll bet you want to call that a typo though don’t you?


It is you who is extremely confused or perhaps just simply being deceitful by misrepresenting the facts.

First of all I don’t need a paper and pencil to know that it is very possible that none of the units would have to experience a decline in the breeding rates for the statewide data to show a perceptive 5% decline following the shift in sample sizes within the traditional high to low breeding areas.



seems that you either don’t know when the shift in data occurred or when the use of 3 year averages began or more likely that you were just hoping no one would catch you in yet another con-job.

The use of three years averages just started while the major shift in sample locations occurred between 2001 and 2003. That was well before the use of the three year averages you used in your post.

Try again because that flim-flam tactic isn’t working.



It seem that the more logical unbiased readers disagree with your opinion on that too.



I don’t figure you have any beans to spill though I certainly don’t doubt you will come up some other twisted misrepresentations of the facts and reality.

If you have any beans to spill go for it.



Where did you get the idea that only 2% of the bucks harvested were 3 ½ years old? I don’t think anything has been released yet on the 2007 harvest aging results unless I have missed it but in any event I doubt the number of older bucks declined from 26% to just 2% in one year.

Here are the correct percentages for the 2006 harvest based on the data from the 2007 report.

Results of cementum annuli age analysis of adult males from the 2006 firearms season showed that most adult males were 2.5-years-old (71%). Twenty-one percent were 3.5-years-old, 5% were 4.5-years-old, and the remaining 3% were 5.5-years-old or older.

I suspect that you made an honest mistake though this time, surely you really aren’t that deceptive are you?



We’ve been down this road before too.

Even though the entire Mississippi antler study is questioned by many in the world of professional deer managers even if they did have a decline in statewide antler growth it would still be immaterial to what we do in Pennsylvania. You see in Mississippi they harvest their bucks before the breeding season while in Pennsylvania we wait until all of the bucks have had the opportunity to breed before we harvest them.

You probably have been hoping that I wouldn’t expose that fact though weren’t you?

R.S. Bodnehorn

ORIGINAL: sproulman


RSB, if we have nothing but young doe, which it looks like most doe i see are not too old looking,could that be a REASON we dont see fawns .

is this why dr.alt told me and rep hanna he wanted us to kill off only the OLD DOE,not young ones.